I’m Richard Lloyd Jones and welcome to another episode of Thinking with Somebody Else’s Head. Read the literature about complex problem solving and you’re in for a challenging read. System structure and dynamics, facets of intelligence, positive and negative dependencies. It’s mind-numbing stuff that seeks to concretize often abstract what if scenarios so popular in corporate planning departments or government games theory laboratories.

The nub of the thing is this: you’ve got a goal you want to reach, and a lot of variables in the way of achieving it. What do you need to put in place to transform the state of your current reality into the desired reality?

It’s analytical, logical and quantifiable for flow charts and computer programmers. And its focus on solutions proves that complex problem solving is the territory of those pragmatic Americans, raised as they are on the can-do philosophy of Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale.

I’m Richard Lloyd Jones, and this is Thinking with Somebody Else’s Head.

In light of the Paris attacks in November of 2015, it’s difficult to know the best thing to do. The French government, seemingly wanting to show off those decisive decision-making muscles so vaunted in our no nonsense, zero tolerance, “let’s show ’em who’s boss” business model of a society, wasted no time in declaring war.

Most of our western world commiserated concernedly and gave their approval.

Donald Trump said the French need more guns.

It’s oh-so-easy to react in kind in this world. Far too simple to hit back when we’ve been violated, to see red and demand hard justice. That response we know well. From Travis Bickle’s “You talkin’ to me”, to Dirty Harry’s “Go ahead. Make my day” snarl, the world’s full of these modern archetypes. Guys who don’t back down, men and women who make sure they get even.

But is this the best response if we want to resolve this? Will this “brutality to match brutality” move us forward? Seems to me we need a different response. Something we can find in Norberto Keppe‘s science of Analytical Trilogy.

I’m Richard Lloyd Jones and this is Thinking with Somebody Else’s Head. I moved to Brazil from New York in 2001, 2 1/2 months before 9/11.

Talk about timing.

But if it was timing, it was not anything conscious. My desire was to learn more about the work of an extraordinary scientist I’d become aware of a short time before moving here.

That scientist was Dr. Norberto Keppe. What Keppe proposes in his far-reaching science is, quite simply, a solution to the fundamental human problem, which is that we act in contradiction to our essence and, therefore, we act against life. This goes to the root of the issue. This Inversion is the cause of all our conflicts and crises today, so it’s not a matter simply of protecting this or that species or saving this or that ecosystem or cutting our greenhouse gasses or resolving geo-political scheming. We’re going to have to change virtually everything if we are to attain the well-being that we have a right to enjoy. The transformation must be basic. It must be total.

I’m Richard Lloyd Jones and this is Thinking with Somebody Else’s Head. Well, you don’t have to look far these days, do you, to find signs of sickness. A young girl is stoned in Brazil by evangelical fanatics as she’s on the way to a Candomble church. Boo Haram slaughtering Nigerians in an endeavor to create its own state. And now, 9 people dead in Charleston, S.C. after a gunman opened fire on a prayer meeting.

Isn’t it hard to know what to say, beyond the normal words of sorrow and sadness? We lament the seeming deterioration in humanity and civilization but horrifyingly seem at a complete loss as to what to do about it. Obama called on Martin Luther King’s words when King stated the need to question the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produces the murderers.

But we seem unable to collectively embark on that. It seems really that a piece is missing from our understanding of the human being and his society. Well, I believe that missing link is here in Norberto Keppe‘s science of Analytical Trilogy.

The Roots of Racism Updated, today on Thinking with Somebody Else’s Head.

Dogma. A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Meaning incapable of being questioned or doubted. In the 15 and 1600s, there was the beginning of a movement against dogma that burst forth from the scientific studies of such giants as Copernicus and Keppler, Newton and Galileo. Names we know well, even if we understand little of their proposals.

But this much we can understand: the scientists of the time were engaged in replacing untestable dogmas with scientific scrutiny and experimentation.

The dogmas they were opposing, or course, were from the religious institutions of the time. Large and powerful churches not opposed to burning or drowning those who disagreed with them. Scientific experimentation, then, was a good thing that helped move us from superstition and irrationality.

But there is a danger as well when experimental science is elaborated independently from the knowledge that was available in the past. It creates another intransigent dogma. We’ll go beyond the dogmas of modern science, today on Thinking with Somebody Else’s Head.

Welcome to Thinking with Somebody Else’s Head. Carl Gustav Jung proposed that everything that irritates us about others can lead us to understand ourselves. For him, others were a giant mirror into our own psyches. The great German writer, Hermann Hesse, suggested that disliking something in another is disliking something that we have, too.

Freud, Kraepelin, Schopenhauer, those Germans opened the door to our psychological lies. And it was a shock at the time. Jung joked to Freud on their maiden journey to America that they were bringing the plague to American. And if you subscribe to the idea that hell comes from the others, as Sartre proposed, it is a little depressing to have to let go of that and point the finger back inside for the real source of our problems.

The consequences, however, of maintaining that outward blame are severe. From nuking plants with toxic chemicals to ethnic cleansing to executing the “evil” ones, we pay a big price for our naive exteriorization.

Let’s go the other way. The Sanity of Interiorizing our Lives, today on Thinking with Somebody Else’s Head.

Our thinking, our philosophies of life, these are things we take for granted most of the time. “That’s just the way it is,” we say, and we step out confidently upon that premise. But what extensive research in clinical study from Brazil is showing us is that we would do well to investigate a little deeper. Our thinking, as it turns out, is not always our own.

Last time on our program, Cesar Soós and I began our discussion about the leading thinkers who have had such an impact on our human civilization. And how their mistakes have led us collectively to the mess our modern society finds itself in today. We talked about Aristotle’s monumental error of placing the senses as the determiner of knowledge.

“Nothing comes to the mind which doesn’t pass first through the senses,” he asserted, thereby enshrining sensory, positivistic science as the lord of the domain.

Aristotle’s ideas were resisted for a few centuries, particularly by Augustine, who leaned more towards Plato’s universality, and Anselm. But Aquinas, the great medieval theologian, brought Aristotle back to the forefront, and the battle was on. Francis Bacon, Descartes, Comte followed, and science changed from considering more metaphysical explanations for the origin of things to seeing all phenomena only in terms of their physical characteristics. Left in the wake as well were the moral or theological tenets of science, which thus became strictly materialistic. The Big Bang, the search for the particles that cause gravity or even intelligence and creativity, the destruction of material nature to get energy – all are consequences of this academic difference of opinion.

Right away, we see that philosophy and theology have dramatically influenced science, which does not come solely from experimentation at all, as scientists would have us believe.

Dr. Norberto Keppe‘s Analytical Trilogy is a more advanced science because it accepts the important discoveries and truths from philosophy and theology in its scientific postulates. Dr. Keppe was telling a group of us recently that Analytical Trilogy is a science that accepts and integrates what’s true from all fields. And this is possible because of two things: Keppe’s establishing of a true metaphysics on which to base an analysis of anything, and Keppe’s clarification of what’s going on in the human psyche, which causes us to misinterpret reality and put many inverted ideas into our theories.

This is no small thing, and difficult to explain in entirety, so I encourage you to read Keppe’s work to get a fuller view. Our portal at trilogia.ws will lead you in some interesting directions, and of course, I’m always available to steer you in the right direction at rich@richjonesvoice.com.

On our last program, we showed how Freud and Darwin made crucial errors that have led society and science in the wrong direction totally. Today, I continue my fascinating discussion with Cesar Soós … part 2 of Fathers of the Lie.